Dorchester 02 advances tighter student device policy and sends rule to first reading

The Dorchester 02 board on June 13 advanced a revised district policy restricting student possession and use of personal electronic devices during the instructional day and sent the accompanying administrative rule for first reading after extended discussion about smartwatches, storage options, medical exemptions and enforcement.

The policy, labeled JICJ, and its rule are intended "to protect the instructional minutes within the classroom," Miss Bates, the board's policy chair, said, arguing that phones and related devices have become a distraction. Board staff presented JICJ as a significantly updated policy and said the rule (JICJ‑R) will spell out operational details for elementary, middle and high school levels.

Principals warned the board that enforcement would be difficult unless schools adopt consistent routines. A high‑school principal said the most workable approach is for students to place devices in a classroom storage system on entry: "If you allow them to keep it on their person, we're going to be chasing the discipline of a kid sneaking their stuff," the principal said, describing the burden on teachers who should be focused on instruction.

The board debated what the policy should define as a "personal electronic device." Members and principals discussed including smartwatches, earbuds, gaming devices and accessories, noting that some watches and earbuds can receive messages or play audio independently of a phone. Miss Graham, who presented the draft policy language, said the intent is to treat smartwatches and earbuds the same as cell phones for the times phones are restricted, though operational exceptions could be addressed in the rule.

The district also discussed operational details for different grade levels. For elementary students the draft rule permits possession on campus provided devices are not visible, used or activated and are kept off during the instructional day; middle‑school principals favored keeping devices in backpacks or other nonvisible secure locations rather than a centralized classroom bin; high schools plan a visible classroom storage device with numbered compartments so students and staff can verify devices are secured.

The board and principals addressed special medical needs: a staff member noted that Section 504 plans will provide accommodations when a student requires access to a device for medical reasons, such as diabetic monitors tied to phones.

Legal and liability questions arose over confiscation and return. A committee member asked whether confiscating devices constitutes taking property; Miss Graham and staff said the district has authority to confiscate devices during the school day as it would other contraband and that the draft policy already states the district is not responsible for loss or damage. The board asked staff to add a clarifying line that by bringing a device to school families accept that risk or to place related language in the student handbook.

Miss Bates summarized proposed disciplinary steps principals had described for high schools: first offense could be removal for the remainder of the period, one day of in‑school suspension (ISS), confiscation and a $25 fee; subsequent offenses would escalate to additional ISS and out‑of‑school suspension (OSS), with an expulsion hearing possible after repeated referrals. Those consequences, she said, were intended for inclusion in the student handbook or discipline matrix rather than the high‑level policy text so the district can adjust procedures if needed.

Board members stressed consistent application across schools and asked for an implementation update; Miss Powell asked for a readout about how the policy and its enforcement are working after an initial period (roughly four weeks was discussed), and staff agreed to report back.

The chair stated the board would send JICJ with a clarified final paragraph and the administrative rule JICJ‑R on for first reading; the transcript records assent from members but does not record a formal roll‑call vote or name a mover for the motion. The board did not take a recorded roll‑call vote in the meeting transcript provided.

Next steps identified in the meeting: staff will draft the rule's operational language and guidance for teachers and administrators, clarify liability language for the policy/handbook, research storage devices and costs (clear individual compartments were discussed), and return to the board with implementation updates.

The transcript of the meeting notes the discussion and the board's decision to move both the policy and rule forward to a first reading; the meeting audio/transcript did not specify the calendar year for the June 13 meeting time but recorded the meeting start as 11 a.m.